Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Berridge

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about his Amendment 6, because my concerns also relate to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It does not seem to reflect the way that seriously ill children behave.

I have looked after children dying of malignancies. They knew that they were dying and asked really straightforward questions. They would ask about how they would die and would want to have in-depth conversations. I recall one little boy who asked me if he could play football in heaven, after another little boy in an adjacent room had died a few weeks earlier. These children asked for explicit details and wanted to have lots of conversations. Another one said that he would die after his goldfish died. Sadly, that was prophetic and when he was close to death, he asked his divorced parents to come in and promise to look after his siblings together. These children know each other; they want to ask questions and need to have them answered.

I am not sure how, with Amendment 6, doctors are meant to respond to these children when they ask questions. At the moment, you respond gently and openly, and explore with them what they are really asking about in an age-appropriate way. I have a concern that this could make people feel risk-averse about having open communication with these children, and let children remain isolated with their fears. They hear about assisted dying on the news and in the media; the ethical aspects are part of the senior school curriculum in some areas. I am really concerned that Amendment 6, while well-intentioned, and the adjacent amendments, might actually make the day-to-day looking after of these children as they are dying more difficult.

Amendments 170 and 405 seem to lower the threshold for communication. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for pointing out that whenever an interpreter is used they must be a registered public service interpreter, to avoid the poor communication scenario which I referred to last week. Speech and language therapists are essential, so can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explain how with one would judge “effective”, as is listed in his amendment, and assess “reasonable steps”? These seem very subjective and I am not sure how they would be monitored. Others have spoken to the other amendments, so I look forward to hearing the comments from the noble and learned Lord.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I will speak briefly to raise attention to Amendment 170, which has recently been added to the group. In an effort to short-circuit, we will come to the issues of interpreters much later on.

I have laid Amendment 174, which quite simply says that an interpreter must be over the age of 18. It will not surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that I have a whole cluster of amendments to deal with what may be inadvertent situations that are not covered off for under-18s. I invite the noble and learned Lord to look at that amendment to see whether it can swiftly be clarified and dealt with, along with the others that relate to children.

In this group, I will also speak to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendments 332, 417 to 419 and 425, which I believe are a genuine attempt to deal with the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It advised the sponsor of the Bill to remove the Clause 15 power and to align the other clauses, because there were inconsistent wordings. I want to reiterate that reassurance was given in the other place that there would be one second opinion by another doctor. This goes back to the noble and learned Lord’s opener: when we talk about “cannot”, we need to cover that off in the Bill. The Bill was covering death or illness—obvious situations where the function cannot be fulfilled—but “will not” is obviously a different scenario.

Unless the doctor is unable to perform that function, for whatever reason, if we do not stick to the word “cannot”, we will potentially get the opening up of the ability to choose a number of doctors and maybe having some kind of discussion. Then they may not want to act, which may be for the reasons outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Goudie. Then we might have a number of assessments or discussions that do not become a formal refusal which is then documented. I do not think the noble and learned Lord intended, by changing Clauses 10 and 13, to broaden the scenarios where a further referral could be made to any situation in which the doctor is unable or unwilling to continue; I think this has happened inadvertently. I know that my noble friend Lord Harper has laid amendments regarding particular scenarios beyond “death” and “illness”, and I think that the Minister in the other place, Mr Kinnock, mentioned family circumstances or emergencies. Perhaps the way ahead here—I am trying to pre-empt a further group, when we get to it—is that we could have a clause that outlines more circumstances than the two that are in the Bill.

Obviously, as lawyers, we know we can never cover every circumstance that would justify a doctor saying, “I can’t do this function any more”, not “I won’t”. Perhaps there could be a system whereby a doctor who wants to withdraw, and his or her circumstances are not in the paragraphs, should have to go to the panel and say, “I’ve got a situation that isn’t within the framework of the legislation, but I can’t for these reasons perform that function”. So I hope the noble and learned Lord will not move those amendments, as he has promised, but we could come back to this in the group that deals substantively with exploring scenarios where the doctor cannot act.